I don't think that we can take nuclear power off the table.
What we have to make sure of is that we have the capacity to store
waste properly and safely, and that we reduce whatever threats
might come from terrorism. And if we can do that in a
technologically sound way, then we should pursue it.

President-elect Obama, throughout the campaign, you pledged to
find ways to provide relief for the rising energy prices that
affect millions of American households and businesses. This was a
leading issue for voters, especially during the summer when
gasoline exceeded $4.00 a gallon. Though gasoline prices have since
plummeted in the global economic downturn, this respite will only
be temporary unless you take strong steps now. The nation also
faces continued increases in electricity costs and even the
possibly of shortages and rolling blackouts, and you should take
steps to ensure that new electric generation can meet the nation's
need for power.

You have promised to pursue nuclear energy as long as it is safe
and technologically sound.[3] The reality is that all of those conditions
are currently being met by America's 104 operating commercial
nuclear power reactors. As you have also noted, nuclear energy is
an important source of clean electricity.

But you have also promised a costly environmental agenda. If you
do undertake such measures, you risk far higher energy prices.
Moreover, you will put jobs and growth at risk while doing little
to meet global warming goals. The voters connected strongly with
your pledges to provide affordable energy. The following steps
would help you to deliver on these promises.

Remove barriers to domestic energy. You took
the right step during the summer when you supported increased
domestic oil and natural gas production. Along with others in
Congress, you allowed the restrictions on energy leasing in 85
percent of America's territorial waters to lapse. These waters are
estimated to hold oil equivalent to 30 years of imports from Saudi
Arabia and enough natural gas to power American homes for 17
years.[4]

But that was just a first step, and you should do more to make
better use of America's domestic resources. You should also remove
the restrictions on onshore drilling, such as those that prevent
access to the estimated 10 billion barrels of oil beneath a small
portion of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Even those
areas where drilling for oil and natural gas is not restricted
outright are subject to years-long regulatory delays and multiple
opportunities for activist lawsuits. You should streamline these
provisions to eliminate such frivolous and counterproductive
delays.

These steps will help both to bring down energy costs for all
Americans and to make the nation less reliant on unfriendly or
hostile nations. You cannot reach your goal to become free of our
dependence on Middle Eastern oil within 10 years[5] without tapping our
domestic resources. You should make sure that Washington does not
stand in the way of any domestic energy source.

Reform the arduous permitting process for new nuclear
power plants. As you and others have recognized, the
nation's energy, economic, security, and environmental objectives
cannot be met without nuclear power. This has led to multiple
initiatives to restart the industry in the U.S. However, many of
these plans rely heavily on subsidies and are not sustainable.
Instead, you should work with Congress to institute a fast-track
program aimed at halving the time for granting
construction/operation permits for certain new plants. Such a
proposal would direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to
focus its efforts on fast-tracked applications.

To qualify, a new plant would have to be an NRC-certified design,
located on a site that already has a plant, and operated by an
experienced nuclear operator. Congress should provide the NRC with
the appropriate resources and direct America's national
laboratories to organize in support of the effort. This would
demonstrate your commitment to safe nuclear power and provide the
regulatory stability that investors need if the industry is to
grow. Finally, it would provide the information necessary to bring
about comprehensive regulatory reform that the nation needs for a
nuclear renaissance to take hold.[6]

Modernize nuclear waste management. The debate
over managing nuclear waste in the U.S. has to be elevated beyond
where one stands on Yucca Mountain or recycling nuclear fuel. To do
that, you must change the very foundation on which our current
waste management strategy is built. Our current system of
ratepayers paying the federal government to dispose of waste
through a fee has proven dysfunctional. It stifles technological
advances and is both economically irrational and politically
driven.

Instead, you need to make nuclear power operators responsible for
managing their own spent nuclear fuel. This would create a market
for fuel management services in which all approaches could compete.
It would allow nuclear power operators to fold the actual costs of
nuclear energy into what they charge for electricity, allowing the
most cost-effective and efficient methods of waste management to
emerge and encouraging entrepreneurs to develop new and innovative
waste management technologies. It would also promote technological
innovation on the power generation side. If nuclear operators were
responsible for the actual costs of managing spent fuel, they would
demand technologies that produce more manageable waste.[7]

Determine the future of Yucca Mountain. You
have stated your opposition to the geologic repository at Yucca
Mountain based on questions of safety and the opposition of the
people of Nevada. That position is premature. Instead, you should
allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct its review of
the Department of Energy's permit application for the Yucca
Mountain repository. If they determine that the repository can be
constructed and operated safely, then you should allow its
customers (the nuclear power industry) to engage with the people of
Nevada to develop a mutually agreeable solution.

Open foreign markets to U.S. commercial nuclear
suppliers. Creating jobs, supporting domestic
manufacturing, and developing a strong energy policy have been
themes of your campaign. Opening foreign markets to American
nuclear suppliers is one way to make progress on each of these
objectives. Many foreign markets are heavily protected against U.S.
and other foreign sources of competition in the nuclear power and
related industries. Opening these markets to U.S. firms would
benefit U.S. manufacturing and America's nuclear industrial base
and create thousands of new jobs.

Freer trade makes sense not only for the U.S., but also for
countries around the world--especially with the global drive to
diversify to alternative sources of energy. You should work through
the World Trade Organization and directly with other countries to
help reduce barriers to trade, thereby promoting competition and
reducing market distortions.

Be realistic about alternative energy. You
must be realistic about sources of alternative energy, especially
the time that it will take for economically and technologically
viable alternatives to be ready to displace conventional energy
sources. The process will likely take at least two decades. This
means that the age of fossil fuels--oil for transportation and coal
for electricity generation--will be with us for some time, so we
need to ensure that these energy sources are as plentiful and
affordable as possible until such time as alternatives can carry
the load. You cannot begin to shut the door on domestic oil
drilling or coal-fired power plants based on the wishful thinking
that alternatives to them are just around the corner. They are
not.

You should be especially vigilant about avoiding policies that
abandon free enterprise and instead mandate government-chosen
alternatives. This includes the renewable fuel mandates already in
effect as well as the wind and other renewable electricity mandates
that you have proposed. If these energy sources made sense, they
would be flourishing without government mandates. The fact that
people must be forced to use them is a sign that they are otherwise
too costly to compete and thus run counter to your
energy-affordability agenda.

You should start by repealing the ill-conceived biofuels mandate
that has already helped to drive up the price of food.[8]
Moreover, alternative energy sources, including nuclear, should not
be mandated or subsidized by the government, but they should not be
blocked by it either, as has been the case with oil shale in
Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah.

Do not enact global warming policies that will harm the
economy with little environmental benefit. Global
warming-based restrictions on the use of the fossil fuels--coal,
oil, and natural gas--that currently provide 85 percent of
America's energy will be very expensive. For example, the
Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act, the so-called
cap-and-trade bill defeated in the Senate last summer, would have
imposed significant costs on consumers and the overall economy.[9]
Gasoline prices would have increased by 29 percent by 2030,
electricity and natural gas prices would also have risen, and job
losses would have extended well into the hundreds of thousands. You
should particularly note that these are net job losses after
including the overhyped "green jobs" that would have been created.
Having the EPA pursue a similar policy through regulations under
the Clean Air Act would prove even costlier.

Moreover, such measures provide few if any benefits. Even assuming
the worst of global warming, they still would reduce the Earth's
future temperature by an amount too minuscule to measure. What
these kinds of global warming measures would do is raise
energy prices, which disproportionately hurts low-income
households. They would also kill American jobs, especially
manufacturing jobs.

Overall, the cost of ill-advised climate policy would end up
taking at least as much from low- and middle-income households as
your tax cuts and other spending programs have promised them. It
would also undercut your push for greater domestic energy use by
restricting the use of coal, the one energy source America has in
great abundance. If you really want to address the rising costs of
energy, you should reject these kinds of measures that cause great
economic harm and have scant environmental benefits.

Do not repeat the mistakes of the 1970s. From
1970 to 1980, policymakers tried to solve energy problems with
higher energy taxes, heavy-handed government regulation of energy
markets, or attempts by Washington to pick winners and losers among
emerging alternatives. In every instance, Washington took an
already difficult energy situation and made it worse with
shortsighted meddling. There is simply no excuse for repeating past
mistakes, whether it be reinstating the windfall profits tax on oil
companies, reimposing price controls or their functional
equivalent, overregulating the nuclear industry, or mandating wind
power or other politically correct alternatives. Remember: It was
Ronald Reagan's decisive steps that freed the nation from Jimmy
Carter's failed policies.

Conclusion

Your promise to address the nation's high energy costs resonated
soundly with the voters, and your pledge to use safe nuclear power
as a key part of our energy mix makes sense. You should not let the
temporary decrease in gasoline prices distract you from keeping
these promises. If you persevere and follow the right steps to open
and use all domestic energy sources, including nuclear
power, energy will become more affordable and plentiful for all
Americans, and the nation will be less reliant on hostile nations
for energy.

But you should not undercut these goals by shackling energy with
costly restrictions and mandates, which have long been a
regrettable Washington tradition; nor should you apply this
problematic approach to global warming. A truly new energy policy
would recognize the importance of free markets and a light touch
from Washington in meeting the energy needs of the American
people.

Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the
Environment, and Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy,
in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The
Heritage Foundation.

Share

President-elect Obama, throughout the campaign, you pledged to findways to provide relief for the rising energy prices that affectmillions of American households and businesses. This was a leadingissue for voters, especially during the summer when gasolineexceeded $4.00 a gallon.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."

Sign up to start your free subscription today!

Sorry! Your form had errors:

First name is not validLast name is not validEmail Id is not validZip code is not valid

About The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.

Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More